Ruks Construction vs. Adworld Sign, and Transworld Media GR No. 204866, January 21, 2015 Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:
Adworld Sign Corp filed for damages against Transworld when Transworld Medias billboard structure collapsed and crashed against
Adworlds billboard structure, which was misaligned and its foundation impaired.
In its Answer with Counterclaim, Transworld Media averred that the collapse of its billboard structure was due to extraordinarily strong
winds that occurred instantly and unexpectedly, and maintained that the damage caused to Adworlds billboard structure was hardly.
noticeable.
Transworld likewise filed a Third-Party Complaint against Ruks Construction, the company which built the billboards structure. It
was alleged therein that the structure constructed by Ruks had a weak and poor foundation not suited for billboards, thus, prone to collapse,
and as such, Ruks should ultimately be held liable for the damages caused to Adworlds billboard structure.
Ruks counter: Billboard already had a foundation when it built the structure
RTC: ruled that Transworld Media and Ruks Construction are solidarily liable.
CA: affirmed RTC decision
Ruks Construction appealed with SC.

ISSUE: WON Ruks Consult was solidarily liable with Transworld for the damages to Adworlds billboard. --YES

RULING:
Jurisprudence defines negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is the failure to
observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.

In this case, the CA correctly affirmed the RTCs finding that Transworlds initial construction of its billboards lower structure without the
proper foundation, and that of Rukss finishing its upper structure and just merely assuming that Transworld would reinforce the weak foundation
are the two (2) successive acts which were the direct and proximate cause of the damages sustained by Adworld.
Worse, both Transworld and Ruks were fully aware that the foundation for the formers billboard was weak; yet, neither of them took
any positive step to reinforce the same. They merely relied on each others word that repairs would be done to such foundation, but none was
done at all. Clearly, the foregoing circumstances show that both Transworld and Ruks are guilty of negligence in the construction of the formers
billboard, and perforce, should be held liable for its collapse and the resulting damage to Adworlds billboard structure.

As joint tortfeasors, therefore, they are solidarily liable to Adworld.

Verily, "joint tortfeasors are those who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the
commission of a tort, or approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are also referred to as those who act together in committing
wrong or whose acts, if independent of each other, unite in causing a single injury.
Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage. In other words, joint tortfeasors
are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves." The Courts
pronouncement in People v. Velasco is instructive on this matter, to wit:
Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not
have happened, the injury may be attributed to all of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible
persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by
them to the injured person was not same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the
negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of
the injury.

There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where
the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although acting independently, are in combination the
direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the
injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury.

DISPOSITION:
Petition by Ruks Construction is denied.